People v. Bueno CA4/1

California Court of Appeal Dec 12, 2024 No. D082472Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the defendant's conviction for unlawfully receiving a motor vehicle, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting lay opinion testimony identifying the defendant in surveillance footage and that the defendant failed to establish prosecutorial misconduct or cumulative error.

Issues

Whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting a surveillance manager's lay opinion testimony identifying the defendant.
Whether the prosecutor committed prejudicial error during closing argument by allegedly lowering the burden of proof.
Whether the cumulative effect of alleged evidentiary errors requires reversal.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the surveillance manager’s testimony, particularly where Bueno was readily identifiable due to his unique appearance and stature.”

“Because we found no errors, there can be no prejudicial cumulative impact.”

Filed 12/12/24 P. v. Bueno CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D082472

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCE415125)

EDWARD DELARA BUENO,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, John M. Thompson, Judge. Affirmed. Belinda Escobosa, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Daniel Rogers, Amanda Lloyd, Alana Cohen Butler, and Anne Spitzberg Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Edward Delara Bueno challenges his conviction for unlawfully

receiving a motor vehicle in violation of Penal Code section 496d,1 on three grounds. First, he argues that the trial court’s admission of testimony identifying him constituted prejudicial error as the witness lacked sufficient personal knowledge. Second, he argues that the prosecutor committed prejudicial error in her closing argument when she made statements appearing to lower the People’s burden of proof. His final argument is that the cumulative effect of evidentiary errors requires reversal. We reject his contentions and affirm the judgment.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In July 2022, a patron reported to casino personnel that her car was stolen from the casino’s parking lot. Several days later, the police located her stolen car, but the seats, stereo, battery, and other items, including a vacuum cleaner, were missing. The casino’s surveillance manager investigated, including reviewing the casino’s video surveillance footage. The manager backtracked from the parking area to the casino any activity involving the stolen car, and the person driving it away. The surveillance video showed the patron arrived in her car at 9:35 a.m. and parked it in the casino parking structure next to a white minivan. Two men parked the minivan a couple hours earlier and walked into the casino. One of the men wore a distinctive outfit consisting of a red shirt, red shorts, red athletic shoes, and a black baseball cap; video footage showed this person using a casino player’s card in the casino’s gaming machines. At 9:46 a.m., this person, still dressed in red, exited the casino’s elevator and walked into the parking garage. After pausing between the

People v. Bueno CA4/1

AI Brief

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D082472

EDWARD DELARA BUENO,

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

DISCUSSION

DISPOSITION

RUBIN, J.

CASTILLO, J.

AI Brief